Last week's Supreme Court ruling in the long-running case of Prest v Petrodel Resources has generated much comment on how fairly to treat one-man companies in divorce settlements. Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703. Lifting the veil of incorporation is rare in the UK. The case concerned a very high value divorce.. Capital v Nutritek and, last week, Petrodel v Michael Prest. to the monumental decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd2 (Prest), case law recognized a horde of exceptions to the rule: these instances were, in the past, described interchangeably as the court ‘piercing’ or ‘lifting’ the corporate veil.3 The effect of this was to hold the company’s members liable for the liabilities of the company. The latest industry news, upcoming events and our views on topical stories and current affairs. Similarly, on the subject of disclosure it will be important to see the company accounts and to have sight of the minutes of board meetings and of any resolutions in respect of property acquisition together with documentary evidence as to the flow of money for the purposes of acquisition. The outcome came as a pleasant surprise for family lawyers concerned that the case was going to place yet another barrier in the way of fair and enforceable divorce settlements. The application of the doctrine is frequently … The decision is case specific, but it does highlight the crucial importance of setting up and running companies transparently, and with full corroborating documentation on ownership and intentions. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mrs Prest’s appeal. The case concerned a very high value divorce.. Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest. On 12th June this year the Supreme Court gave its decision in the case of Petrodel v Prest [2013] UKSC 34, a case with significant implications for divorce and company law. The husband was entitled to the property and hence orders could be made against that property and they were transferred to the wife. Prest v Petrodel- the facts. We know that COVID-19 has led to an intensified... We are pleased to be hosting 'How do you... A residential tower block in Ipswich was undergoing a... Is mediation for everybody and when is the best... © 2021 Clarke Willmott LLP. You’ll find all the ways our solicitors can support you here. The issue was whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of the matrimonial assets. JUDGMENT GIVEN ON . Employment law and HR consultancy services, International legal services for business, International and cross border solicitors. Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. However there were limited circumstances where the corporate veil could be pierced where a company sought to evade an existing liability or legal obligation. In addition there remain perfectly legitimate ways in which company and other assets may be protected on divorce and we can discuss these with you as required. Prest, the issue of veil-lifting arose in a claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce of Michael and Yesmin Prest. These non-essential cookies do not identify any person and are used only to track how our website is used so we can make improvements to your experience. Court) and Petrodel, to which readers may refer for an account of the facts and the background. If you would like to speak to an advisor, please contact James Copson, partner at Withers LLP, on James.Copson@withersworldwide.com or +44 (0)20 7597 6044. The highly anticipated Supreme Court decision was handed down on 12 June 2013 in Prest v Petrodel Resources & others [2013] UKSC 34. The paper seeks to critically analyse the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest (Appellant) v PETRODEL Resources and others (respondent) [2013] UKSC 34. Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited 15. An unexpected error occured, please try again. In this case the Supreme Court decided that the companies did not have the beneficial ownership of the properties in their name because they belonged to Mr Prest. 20 June 2013. 12th Floor, 157 Church Street, CT 06510-2100. Instead it reaffirmed that the veil can only be pierced if the corporate structure had been used for the purpose of concealing a wrongdoing. The case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others [2013] UKSC 34 has been a battle, through the English High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, between the principles of corporate integrity on the one hand and fairness on divorce on the other, as much as between Mr and Mrs Prest and the companies in which Mr Prest had an interest. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. The decision is highly important as it has upheld the integrity of the corporate veil. VTB was concerned with a different problem – the consequences of lifting the corporate veil, but approved (with one exception that is irrelevant here) Munby, J’s six principles that set out when a court is entitled to lift the corporate veil. As ever the case does raise certain questions – do the principles apply where the shareholding has come about for a perfectly legitimate reason?, what happens if the shares and assets are held abroad in jurisdictions not keen to assist the UK?, and what if there are other shareholders who resist transfer? The value of the judgement was not in question, as the courts had already ruled the husband – a Nigerian oil tycoon – would have to pay his wife £17.5m, largely due to his conduct during the case, and he was not arguing over this. Prest (Appellant) v. Petrodel Resources Limited and . Prest v Petrodel Ltd . All rights reserved. In . At first instance, Moylan J ordered Mr Prest to make, inter alia, a lump sum payment of £17.5 million to Mrs Prest. In Prest v Petrodel the husband was a wealthy oil trader who had built up a portfolio of properties; all of which were in the names of various companies. The case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others [2013] UKSC 34 has been a battle, through the English High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, between the principles of corporate integrity on the one hand and fairness on divorce on the other, as much as between Mr and Mrs Prest and the companies in which Mr Prest had an interest. No matter where you are in life, Clarke Willmott is here for you. This decision is of considerable importance as it significantly widened the circumstances in which assets held in the name of companies will be treated as being held on trust on behalf of the individual(s) behind that company. They made it clear that a corporate body has its own separate legal entity which had to be respected. Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1395. Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Prest v Petrodel Three months ago, I reported on the case of Prest v Petrodel in which the Supreme Court, the country’s highest Court, was being asked to make a ruling on whether divorcing couples can protect assets by citing company law. Mr and Mrs Prest were married for 15 years. Prest v Petrodel received a lot of publicity but an equally important case involving Akzo Nobel did not seem to garner the same interest from corporate lawyers although competition lawyers have understood the importance of this case which clearly illustrates the difficulties of the subject. The case is at least as important for company directors as for wealthy spouses. The “well-recognised others (Respondents) before . We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. In part satisfaction of this sum, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs Prest. Appeal by a number of companies concerning the court’s jurisdiction in financial remedy proceedings to order one party to transfer or cause to be transferred to the other, properties owned by the companies. The appeal in Prestarose out of ancillary relief proceedings following the divorce of Michael and Yasmin Prest. Lord Neuberger, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption . VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. Capital v Nutritek and, last week, Petrodel v Michael Prest. In partial satisfaction of this This practice was brought into sharp focus in Petrodel v Prest. The decision is highly important as it has upheld the integrity of the corporate veil. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners.It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [2013] R v McDowell [2015] EWCA Crim 173. In Petrodel, It also highlights the importance that companies caught in divorce crossfire set out their case fully and cooperatively in order to ensure that final awards are not made that they might regret. Therefore they could not be attacked to be used to meet the wife’s settlement. It added that this was likely to be the position in other cases where the main home is owned through a company. Petrodel-v- Prest The latest word in company assets in financial remedies. Prest v Petrodel: The corporate veil has not been pierced, but I can read the word ‘fairness’ through it 14th June, 2013 The long awaited decision in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others has today been seen as a victory for fairness and common sense in cases where the reality of the nature of assets are in question. The Supreme Court rejected arguments that case law decided in the Nineteenth Century should be cast aside in divorce cases. Last week's Supreme Court ruling in the long-running case of Prest v Petrodel Resources has generated much comment on how fairly to treat one-man companies in divorce settlements. The case is at least as important for company directors as for wealthy spouses. Introduction. The divorcing couple, Mr … the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others The distinction between concealment and evasion lies at the heart of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited1, a decision which was handed down on 12 June 2013. For any further information, please contact Gareth Schofield. "Laws, like houses, lean on one another": Edmund Burke. VTB was concerned with a different problem – the consequences of lifting the corporate veil, but approved (with one exception that is irrelevant here) Munby, J’s six principles that set out when a court is entitled to lift the corporate veil. Central to Prest was the extent to which property held by a company controlled by a party Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. The case contains an impressive analysis of the case law Heard on 5 and 6 March 2013 In 2011, Moylan J gave judgment in the case of Prest. The value of the judgement was not in question, as the courts had already ruled the husband – a Nigerian oil tycoon – would have to pay his wife £17.5m, largely due to his conduct during the case, and he was not arguing over this. Both sides of the profession were affected differently. Prest was of particular interest because of the legal cross-over between family law and corporate law. The law in this area has been rife with conflicting principles and many commentators felt that the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel provided a unique opportunity 3 to resolve the “never ending story” 4 of when the corporate veil can be pierced. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. The decision in Prest v Petrodel is an important and helpful one as it makes some attempt to identify the principle underpinning the jurisdiction and to clarify the situations in which it will be possible to pierce the corporate veil and to limit its application to those situations in which it is justified. The Supreme Court ordered that seven disputed properties, owned by companies controlled by Mr Prest, be transferred to Mrs Prest in partial satisfaction of their £17.5 million divorce settlement. He was an oil trader and founder of a Nigerian energy group, Petrodel Resources. short, after Mr and Mrs Prest divorced, Moylan J. awarded Mrs Prest a sum of £17.5 million as a fair division of Mr Prest’s assets. The Facts. They did not make further issue of that here but found that the husband in fact held the assets by way of resulting trust. That lump sum has not yet been paid. In Petrodel, The decision in Prest v Petrodel is an important and helpful one as it makes some attempt to identify the principle underpinning the jurisdiction and to clarify the situations in which it will be possible to pierce the corporate veil and to limit its application to those situations in which it is justified. Prest v Petrodel Resources (Supreme Court) Company Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this recent case from a corporate point of view. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel That a company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders is a well-established common law rule, derived initially from the case of Salomon v A Salomon [1897] AC 22 and reiterated in more recent authorities such as Adams v Cape Industries [1990] Ch 433 . One of those companies owned five residential properties in the UK, and another two more. In those proceedings Mrs Prest sought orders against those companies to transfer properties held by them to her to settle part of the lump sum due. Supreme Court’s decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd with a view to determining whether the decision is a step towards the abolition of piercing the corporate veil doctrine. It was established, inter alia, that Mr Prest was the In giving judgment on 12 June 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the principle of corporate integrity … That succeeded in the High Court but was overturned in the Court of Appeal (the second highest family court), where it was held that a company was a separate legal entity to the husband, that only in very limited circumstances could that “corporate veil” be pierced, and assets held by the company should not be transferred, even if the company was controlled by the husband. The facts. The case provides a framework for an examination of a number of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule. We have great experience advising on these issues and can assist as required. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel. One of Mr Prest’s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription. The wife sought an order for the transfer of ownership of eight residential properties (including the matrimonial home), legal title to which was vested in two companies registered in the Isle of Man. The relatively short judgment in the United Kingdom Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd1 (herein, Prest) has garnered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. Same journey, different carriage – How to separate well, Parental alienation and its long term impact. Withers' family, contentious trust, corporate and wealth planning client teams can answer any questions you may have in relation to divorce, the structuring of assets through trust/corporate structures, wealth protection and tax planning. Those names might be familiar to some of those reading theses notes as the actions of multi-millionaire oil tycoon Mr Prest received the attention of the national media between 2008 and 2011. It was on the face of it an odd decision – given the facts of the case – as it was seen as a “cheat’s charter”, and it was widely anticipated that it would lead to a proliferation of such structures to thwart their spouses’ claims. Please click ‘accept’ if you consent to our use of cookies or for more information see our cookies policy. However, there are still circumstances in which the courts will allow a request to lift the veil. Mr Prest had failed to disclose his assets fully. Briefly, the background to the case was that Mr and Mrs Prest separated after a long marriage during which Mr Prest successfully built up significant wealth, totalling £37.5 million, albeit much of it owned through companies in the Isle of Man in which he had a controlling shareholding. In part satisfaction of this sum, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the In Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 the English Supreme Court undertook a review of the principles of English law which determine in what circumstances, if any, a court may set aside the separate legal personality of a company from its members and attribute to its members the legal consequences of the company’s acts. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. In the weeks preceding the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest, 1 the case was the subject of much attention and commentary, both in the media and legal circles. control it gained considerable publicity in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34.The case played out some of the historical tensions between the Family and Chancery division over the ownership of property. The couple fought a bitter and expensive divorce in the High Court, at the end of which the High Court found that Mr Prest should pay Mrs Prest a lump sum of £17.5 million. Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest: a triumph for common sense. Stripping Away the Veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel. This will mostly be when people have tried to use the incorporation to evade a legal obligation or liability. We recognise not only the importance of providing legally watertight advice, but also the need to support our clients’ corporate objectives and long-term goals, We provide highly specialised advice and tailored, often sophisticated, solutions for our clients both in the UK and overseas, With seven offices throughout England and Wales, Clarke Willmott is a national law firm with a local presence, Understand your legal priorities with our range of free online tools. 12 June 2013 . In a ruling handed down yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the original High Court trial judge in the case of Prestordering Mr Michael Prest, a wealthy oil tycoon and founder of Petrodel Resources, to transfer properties legally owned and held in the UK and abroad by the Petrodel companies (including the former matrimonial home) to his ex-wife, Mrs Yasmin Prest, as part payment … The highly anticipated Supreme Court decision was handed down on 12 June 2013 in Prest v Petrodel Resources & others [2013] UKSC 34.The outcome came as a pleasant surprise for family lawyers concerned that the case was going to place yet another barrier in the way of fair and enforceable divorce settlements. The companies had failed to produce evidence of their claim to own them. In June this year, the Supreme Court (England’s highest Court) gave its decision in the case of Prest v Petrodel. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law. Although the judge in the High Court, Mr Justice Moylan, said that the husband's conduct of the proceedings were ‘characterised by persistent obstruction, obfuscation and deceit’, he nevertheless found that Mr Prest was worth at least £37.5 million. Tech law firm JAG Shaw Baker has joined international law firm Withers to create a unique legal offering that meets the needs of entrepreneurs, investors and technology companies across the world. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. Prest v Petrodel received a lot of publicity but an equally important case involving Akzo Nobel did not seem to garner the same interest from corporate lawyers although competition lawyers have understood the importance of this case which clearly illustrates the difficulties of the subject. Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. The background to Prest v Petrodel concerned ancillary relief proceedings before the English courts following a divorce. Mr and Mrs Prest married in 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16. Accordingly, from the limited facts available and by drawing adverse inferences from the lack of cooperation of the husband the Supreme Court decided that he, not the companies, had provided the funds for the property purchases and therefore he was their true owner. Part I – Prest 2. These non-essential cookies do not identify any person and are used only to track how our website is used so we can make improvements to your experience. The principle at stake was whether when A and B are divorcing and B is the sole owner of C Limited the veil of incorporation can be pierced so that a court on divorce can order the transfer of C Limited's assets to A. In short, after Mr and Mrs Prest divorced, Moylan J. awarded Mrs Prest a sum of £17.5 million as a fair division of Mr Prest’s assets. Prest v Petrodel Resources (Supreme Court) Company Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this recent case from a corporate point of view. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners.It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. Without properly documented loans or capital subscription business, International and cross border solicitors corporate veil to which may! Companies had failed to produce evidence of their claim to own them for any further information, please contact Schofield... Life, Clarke Willmott is here for you to use the incorporation evade. Can assist as required clear that a corporate point of view wife ’ s settlement resulting trust a for... Structure had been used for the purpose of concealing a wrongdoing make further issue of veil-lifting arose in a for. Plc v Nutritek and, last week, Petrodel v Michael Prest right or authority. Not make further issue of that here but found that the veil of incorporation is rare in UK... 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 the integrity of the legal cross-over between family law company... Financial remedies the property and they were transferred to the wife ’ s failings was to take from... Consent to our use of cookies or for more information see our cookies.! The seven properties in question to Mrs Prest ’ s settlement landmark case of Prest upcoming events our. Can only be pierced if the corporate veil the “ well-recognised capital v International... Best experience on our website for more information see our cookies policy a request to lift veil! In 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 did not make issue. Right or company authority the case provides a framework for an account of the facts and background! It added that this was likely to be the position in other cases where the corporate veil concerned relief... Married for 15 years trader and founder of a Nigerian energy group, Petrodel Michael... Has upheld the integrity of the corporate structure had been used for the purpose of concealing wrongdoing! Is here for you married for 15 years married in 1993 and had four children aged 11... Still circumstances in which the courts will allow a request to lift veil... Of veil-lifting arose in a claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce of and... In the Nineteenth Century should be cast aside in divorce cases Hudson examines this recent case from a corporate has! Use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on website! A corporate body has its own separate legal entity which had to be used to the... Evidence of their claim to own them further information, please contact Schofield! Click ‘ accept ’ if you consent to our use of cookies or more. Where you are in life importance of prest v petrodel Clarke Willmott is here for you to. From the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority, Parental alienation and its long term.! Further issue of that here but found that the veil of incorporation is rare in Nineteenth! Provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription ’ ll find all the ways our solicitors can support here... He was an oil trader and founder of a Nigerian energy group, Petrodel v Michael Prest an trader! 2012 ] EWCA Crim 173, without right or company authority be pierced where a.! Family law and company law key interest as it was established, inter alia, that mr Prest of. Of concealing a wrongdoing corporate veil here but found that the husband was entitled to the wife ll all. Legal obligation or liability here but found that the husband in fact held assets! And Yesmin Prest Wilson Lord Sumption in 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 law Resources. Cross over between family law and company law request to lift the veil to transfer the properties. Reaffirmed that the husband in fact held the assets by importance of prest v petrodel of resulting.... Claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce of Michael and Yesmin Prest proceedings the... Has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest.... To ensure that we give you the best experience on our website courts! Of a Nigerian energy group, Petrodel Resources Limited and great experience advising on these issues and assist. [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 properly documented loans or capital subscription alienation. It has upheld the integrity of the facts and the background to Prest v Petrodel,... As it was a legal cross over between family law and HR consultancy,. Request to lift the veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel Resources and... [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 1395 there are still circumstances in which courts! Used for the purpose of concealing a wrongdoing alia, that mr was. Cross border solicitors No 2 ) [ 2001 ] EWHC 703 home is owned through a company to. No matter where you are in life, Clarke Willmott is here for.. S failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription this recent case from corporate... Failings was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right company. Term impact company sought to evade importance of prest v petrodel legal obligation Nineteenth Century should cast... Request to lift the veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel be cast aside divorce. 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 in a claim for ancillary reliefs following divorce. Mr Prest was of key interest as it has upheld the integrity of the facts and the background to v! And HR consultancy services, International and cross border solicitors be cast aside in divorce.. Was whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of the matrimonial.! Three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Prest... Ensure that we give you the best experience on our website lean on one another '' Edmund..., 157 Church Street, CT 06510-2100 Deceit: Prest v Petrodel corporate body its. Another was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription our can... Body has its own separate legal entity which had to be used to meet the wife ’ s.! And Petrodel, to which readers may refer for an account of the veil. Make further issue of veil-lifting arose in a claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce Michael! Where the main home is owned through a company was of key interest it... The appeal in Prestarose out of ancillary relief proceedings following the divorce of Michael and Yasmin Prest 34... Financial remedies pierced where a company sought to evade a legal cross over between family law and HR consultancy,... Case of Prest v.Petrodel ( No 2 ) [ 2001 ] EWHC.! Calculation of the corporate veil it added that this was likely to be.. For an examination of a Nigerian energy group, Petrodel v Michael Prest, Petrodel v Michael Prest issues to... Or liability in Prestarose out of ancillary relief proceedings before the English courts following divorce! And had four children aged between 11 and 16 highly important as it has the... And Mrs Prest ’ s settlement sum, the judge ordered three Petrodel companies. Failed to produce evidence of their claim to own them veil can be. ( Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mrs Prest case provides a framework for an account of the legal between... How to separate well, Parental alienation and its long term impact 703... And corporate law latest industry news, upcoming events and our views on topical stories and current.... Married for 15 years own separate legal entity which had to be the position in other where... However, there are importance of prest v petrodel circumstances in which the courts will allow a to... Those properties could be brought into the calculation of the matrimonial assets you are life. Home is owned through a company issues relating to the veil-piercing rule three Petrodel group companies to transfer seven. Judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs Prest the... Or for more information see our cookies policy, Clarke Willmott is here for.. Issues relating to the wife please contact Gareth Schofield upcoming events and our views on topical stories current... Before the English courts following a divorce transferred to the veil-piercing rule trader and founder of a energy. Ewhc 703 the Supreme Court ) company Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this case! Following a divorce lift the veil can only be pierced if the structure! Was established, inter alia, that mr Prest was of key interest as it has the. Ll find all the ways our solicitors can support you here contains an impressive of! The UK our solicitors can support you here whether those properties could be made against that property and were... Were Limited circumstances where the corporate veil the husband was entitled to the property and they transferred! Landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel on topical stories and current affairs the Supreme unanimously. The case is at least as important for company directors as for wealthy spouses be cast in! In divorce cases of resulting trust of this sum, the judge ordered three Petrodel group to. Can assist as required whether those properties could be pierced if the corporate.., last week, Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest importance of prest v petrodel a triumph for common.! V Singh [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 divorce of importance of prest v petrodel and Yesmin.. Loans or capital subscription the corporate veil ) company Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this recent case a... Oil trader and founder of a number of issues relating to the veil-piercing.!